G.R. No. 200148. June 4, 2014.

RAMON A. SYHUNLIONG, petitioner, vs. TERESITA D. RIVERA, respondent.

Remedial Law; Evidence; Privileged Communication; The rule on privileged communication means that a
communication made in good faith on any subject matter in which the communicator has an interest, or concerning
which he has a duty, is privileged if made to a person having a corresponding duty.—“The rule on privileged
communication means that a communication made in good faith on any subject matter in which the communicator
has an interest, or concerning which he has a duty, is privileged if made to a person having a corresponding duty.”
In order to prove that a statement falls within the purview of a qualified privileged communication under Article
354, No. 1, the following requisites must concur: (1) the person who made the communication had a legal, moral,
or social duty to make the communication, or at least, had an interest to protect, which interest may either be his
own or of the one to whom it is made; (2) the communication is addressed to an officer or a board, or superior,
having some interest or duty in the matter, and who has the power to furnish the protection sought; and (3) the
statements in the communication are made in good faith and without malice.

_______________

Same; Same; Same; Text Messages; Rivera’s text message falls within the ambit of a qualified privileged
communication since she “was speaking in response to duty [to protect her own interest] and not out of an intent to
injure the reputation” of Syhunliong.—The Court thus finds no error in the CA’s declaration that Rivera’s text
message falls within the ambit of a qualified privileged communication since she “was speaking in response to duty
[to protect her own interest] and not out of an intent to injure the reputation” of Syhunliong. Besides, “[t]here was
no unnecessary publicity of the message beyond [that] of conveying it to the party concerned.”

FACTS:

Petitioner Syhunliong is the President of BANFF Realty and Development Corporation (BANFF). While, respondent
Rivera used to be the Accounting Manager of BANFF. Rivera was hired in September of 2002.

Rivera tendered her resignation to be effective on February 3, 2006. However, Rivera actually continued working
until March of the same year to complete the turn-over to Jennifer Lumapas, who succeeded her.

Sometime in April of 2006, Rivera called Lumapas to request for the payment of her remaining salaries, benefits
and incentives. Lumapas informed Rivera that her benefits would be paid, but the check representing her salaries
was still unsigned, and her incentives were put on hold by Syhunliong.

On April 6, 2006, at around 11:55 a.m., Rivera sent the following text message to one of BANFF’s official cellular
phones held by Lumapas:

I am expecting that. Grabe talaga sufferings ko dyan hanggang pagkuha ng last pay ko. I don’t deserve this
[because] I did my job when I [was] still there. Godbless ras[.] [S]ana yung pagsimba niya, alam niya real meaning.

Minutes later, Rivera once again texted another message, which reads:

Kailangan release niya lahat [nang] makukuha ko diyan including incentive up to the last date na nandyan ako para
di na kami abot sa labor.

On December of 2006, Rivera filed before the NLRC a complaint against Syhunliong for underpaid salaries, 13th to
16th month and incentive pay, gratuities and tax refund in the total sum of Php698,150.48.

On April 16, 2007, pending the resolution of the labor case, Syhunliong instituted against Rivera a complaint for
libel based on the text message sent by Rivera to Lumapas on 06 April 2006.
Rivera filed a Motion to Quash stating that her text message was not prompted by ill will or spite, but was merely
sent as part of her duty to defend her own interests.

RTC denied the Motion to Quash stating that the grounds raised by Rivera are evidentiary in nature, which can only
be threshed out in a full blown hearing to determine if said text message falls squarely within the parameters of
“Privileged Communication”. MR was also denied by the RTC.

On appeal, the CA dismissed the information for libel filed against Rivera. The CA favorably considered her
argument that when the facts in an information fail to charge an offense, the said ground can be invoked by the
accused in a motion to quash filed even after arraignment. The CA held that the text message is not actionable
libel. It does not serve to cast a shadow on Syhunliong’s character and integrity, there being no direct and personal
imputation of a venality to him.

ISSUES:

Whether or not the CA correctly ruled that the text message of Rivera sent to Lumapas falls within the ambit of
privileged communication.

HELD:

To address the libel information, prescription had set in and such is already a compelling reason to order the
dismissal of the same. Syhunliong filed his complaint against Rivera more than one year after the allegedly libelous
text message.

However, the Court still stresses that the text message which Rivera sent to Lumapas falls within the purview of
a qualified privileged communication.

“The rule on privileged communication means that a communication made in good faith on any subject matter in
which the communicator has an interest, or concerning which he has a duty, is privileged if made to a person
having a corresponding duty.”

In order to prove that a statement falls within the purview of a qualified privileged communication under Article
354, No. 1, the following requisites must concur:

(1) the person who made the communication had a legal, moral, or social duty to make the communication, or at
least, had an interest to protect, which interest may either be his own or of the one to whom it is made;

(2) the communication is addressed to an officer or a board, or superior, having some interest or duty in the matter,
and who has the power to furnish the protection sought; and

(3) the statements in the communication are made in good faith and without malice.

In the case at bar, it was Lumapas who informed Rivera of either the delay or denial of the latter’s claims for
payment of salaries, benefits and incentives by Syhunliong. Rivera expressed through the subject text message her
grievances to Lumapas. At that time, Lumapas was the best person, who could help expedite the release of Rivera’s
claims.

Prescinding from the above, the Court thus finds no error in the CA’s declaration that Rivera’s text message falls
within the ambit of a qualified privileged communication since she “was speaking in response to duty [to protect
her own interest] and not out of an intent to injure the reputation” of Syhunliong. Besides, “there was no
unnecessary publicity of the message beyond [that] of conveying it to the party concerned.”